Personal Message (Optional):

What is the libertarian solution to air pollution

The answers I've seen on-line say that a property owner or hurt person could sue the pollution emitter. This might work if there was a big factory nearby enough to cause physical damage.

My question is, what if there are millions of emitters, each degrading the air by only a tiny bit. What if one company was creating widgets that, when used by consumers, each damage the air a little? No one person would be hurt enough by any individual to make a lawsuit worthwhile.

What if thousands of companies were each creating lots of different products that collectively have a major impact on the air, but individually have a very small impact.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

We aren't here to theorize and aggrandize. We're here to do something for someone other than ourselves. If you are a "libertarian" you have missed the boat. It's not about social Darwinism. It's not about survival. There's too much uncertainty.All right wing lunatics grow up! Give me charity or give me death!

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

So being pro freedom and pro individual rights makes somebody a "right wing lunatic??" By that logic, the Bill of Rights was conceived by "right wing lunatics."

"Give me charity or give me death!"

This also seems completely irrational. Without freedom, there is no charity. When government takes money by force and then gives it to somebody else, that is not charity but theft. When government does this, it displaces real charity and undermines the social fabric. It devalues work and property rights while corrupting the receiver of these ill-gotten goods.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I do believe in charity. Taxes are charity. What other view is there?Stop theorizing and start accepting reality. And work with it.Work it. Please. I'm so tired of these theoretical illusions called freedom. We aren't here to be free. We're here to learn lessons. Start learning. If you are able.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Taxes are not "charity." Taxes are forcible contributions while charity is voluntary. According to Webster's, charity is "the voluntary giving of help, typically money, to those in need."

Taxes are contributions to society above and beyond a "fair share" from the wealthy. The wealthy pay a much greater share of their income than the less wealthy so the liberal line that they don't pay their "fair share" is obscenely false. They pay FAR MORE than their fair share.

But taxes displace real charity while not really replacing it. Real charity enriches both the giver and receiver. The giver can see the positive impact their charity produces and the giver better understands and appreciates the sacrifice and generosity of those who give to him or her. In turn, the receiver shows greater gratitude to the giver. This enriches the giver and encourages more giving. Moreover, the giver is able to see where his or her charity is most beneficial. This greatly reduces waste and inefficiency.

Under the current tax and redistribution system, the receiver feels entitled to their gifts and fails to appreciate them. They become a permanent underclass dependent on these gifts. They lose their incentive to become self-sufficient. At the same time, those doling out the money are spending other people's money. They don't have an inherent interest in ensuring the money is spent wisely. This produces huge waste and inefficiency which is literally bankrupting the country.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Private charity and enterprise has done more to alleviate poverty than redistribution through taxes has ever done.

Beyond the basic functions of government, taxes are only reliable at diverting capital towards wasteful, corrupt and unproductive schemes and away from productive enterprises which increase prosperity.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

From one that pretended to be a libertarian: "Real charity is not reliable. That's why there are taxes."

Why despite billions of tax dollars spent on the war on poverty for half a century there has been no significant change? Why do blacks have more out of wedlock children, more children in jail and more uneducated children than before all this money was spent? It appears that there has been a bit of cultural genocide with all the zealous "help" provided.

If one looks at the statistics that you seem to abhor it appears that black's rate of improvement was far greater before the taxes were spent than after.

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

E.g., your example of out-of-wedlock birth. A hundred years ago, that was almost unheard of, especially among blacks. A child born out of wedlock was shunned, a nasty word made for him (that I won't try to sneak past the Nannybot). Today, it's business as usual, no biggie, almost a badge of honor in some circles.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

David R. most people that call themselves Liberals etc. and use the rhetoric you are hearing are self serving and quite selfish. Whatever charity they do is so they feel good about themselves, fit in with their peers etc. There is a difference between their satisfying their self serving needs and true charity. That is why they are always asking others to contribute through taxes to programs they otherwise would not contribute to.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Alvin I think we agree. Where I said there was not significant change I was referring to the statistics regarding the number of people living in poverty. I think there has been very little movement despite the billions or trillions of dollars spent. But then I added things other than poverty statistics and showed some of the things that were getting worse. Finally specific to blacks I stated that their rate of improvement was greater before the expenditures than after.

I understand that one might say things are worse today and I won't disagree. Thomas Sowell said he would never had achieved what he achieved had he been born at a later time. That tells us a lot.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

"From one who stopped pretending to one who is still pretending:GROW UP you little mouse."

Michael you admitted to not telling the truth and the blog is littered with your contradictions. No one can trust what you say. If you find a contradiction in what I say show me just like I showed you were not who you pretended to be.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Who is "we" and who is "other than ourselves". Property rights as long as it is for the Volkgemeineshaft? Dangerous route.

Actually, Libertarianism is historically on the left. Even the Libertarian party was an anti-war wing of the Democractic party opposed to Lyndon Johnson.

Too manyprogressives have simply made the transition from utopian socialism to state socialism -- with the lack of understanding of the historical meaning. It means, leftist socialists (international socialists and utopian socialists) morph via pragmatism to become national socialists (Stalin's socialism within one state).

State power has a way of self-pertuating, self-justifying and growing.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

The crucial difference, of course, is that the state holds the monopoly on violence. When you can grow at the point of a gun, you have an almost insurmountable advantage. As a practical matter, it does not appear that any society has managed to avoid the emergence of the leviathan state for very long.

Your summary of libertarianism (a few posts above) is a caricature of libertarian beliefs. Fundamentally, libertarianism is about voluntary interactions. Libertarianism asserts that the only appropriate use of violence (either individually or by the state) is to defend against aggression in society.

This is a crucial point that the various authoritarian philosophies (both left and right) want to gloss over. They believe in the corporate (usually state) use of violence and threats of violence in order to achieve compliance with their vast laundry list of objectives.

This contrasts with voluntary social interactions, in which charity and other liberal impulses are to be lauded and celebrated. The use of force corrupts these important social impulses.

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

1. Libertarianism isn't really defineable -- more a tradition and set of principles rather than a "system". The only thing that is truly axiomatic is that freedom should be the default, not government. Those limiting freedom have the burden of proof, not those trying to expand freedom.

2. Libertarianism is not self-perpetuating. Libertarians, by principle, seek no control over others, and thus cannot self-perpetute -- except in one's own mind perhaps.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

What you call "self-justification" I call a logically consistent philosophy. Libertarians start with a simple philosophy and construct rules from that. The disadvantage is that not all topics can be cleanly answered, but in those cases, it is left to the individual, which is consistent with the underlying philosophy.

Liberals and conservatives generally start with what they believe and then try to create principles which match. Of course this creates inconsistent rules and hypocrisy, and is the main reason why I elected to reject these belief systems.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Thank you. Who is "we"? Who is the "government"?When you little mice start thinking correctly and stop scatterng your thoughts all over the Internet. Then you will come to realize the truth.This is a waste of time... But I digress...

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Michael -- you avoid the historical "truth". The "government" isn't really we -- but a subset group. This is a fundamental principle in libertarianism -- the seperation of state and SOCIETY. They are not the same.

When the subset is able to convince people that they are the "we" and thus grant powers to achieve the Volkegemeinshaft (German work is purposeful historic usage), you get tragic results. This is historic fact.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Michael -- perhaps you are the one that need to think a little more deeply, if you do not believe you are selfish -- but other's are. Self-interest vs. selfish is a function of perspective and social norms.